The case against the voter ID amendment is remarkably easy to make. Setting aside the legitimate fear that this measure would disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans, especially the elderly, we’re unconvinced that voter fraud is major concern in Minnesota — and even if it were, the measure that’s being put before voters would do little to fix the problem. More than 100 felons have been convicted of voting illegally in the 2008 election, but a photo ID law wouldn’t have stopped them from voting, because voting status doesn’t appear on a driver’s license.
Furthermore, the devil is in the details — especially when voters are being asked to vote on a proposal that has no details. The photo ID proposal has no implementation language, so we’re being asked to simply trust that our legislators will figure out a fair and affordable way of making sure that no voters are disenfranchised by the photo ID amendment. Frankly, what we’ve seen from St. Paul on this issue gives us little confidence in our legislators.
If our election system needs fixing, then the Legislature should fix it. That’s its job. We suggest the creation of a bipartisan election reform committee to write a complete bill, with a fiscal note on its costs, leaving nothing to hide. Protect the voting rights of the elderly and disabled, as well as our troops serving overseas, and utilize the best technology available, including pollbooks and facial recognition software to prevent fraud. Make sure that rural townships and sparsely populated counties don’t go broke trying to meeting unfunded mandates. If “vouching” is a problem, then nullify that provision in the current election law.
Such legislation might require a year or two to perfect, but what’s the rush? We’re not on the verge of seeing Minnesota’s democracy undermined by people who are willing to risk fines and imprisonment in order to cast an illegal vote.
The Rochester Post-Bulletin NAILS the entire argument against the Voter ID constitutional amendment.
So here’s a megapost with lots of info. I’ll add things as people ask for them. These are all links to stuff I’ve posted before; I’m just collecting it all in one place as a reference for your Facebook fights.
- What exactly is Obamacare, and what does it change? - a lengthy explanation of what the ACA does and when.
- What women* have to gain from Obamacare
- A graphic on the main provisions of the healthcare law
- Stats on all the good things that have already happened since the ACA went into effect
- My baseline explanation of what “Obamacare” is, why people thought it was unconstitutional, and how it compares to car insurance
- A story from a woman named “Stephanie” who was dropped from her insurance because she got cancer, and an explanation of how most Americans actually support the provisions within the ACA, but don’t support it as a whole because of Republican attack ads
- A news story about that time the Founding Fathers signed a bunch of healthcare mandates into law
- A chart showing how many young people have been unable to get health care because of costs
Let me know if you need any other resources! Today, dear readers, we fight the Battle of Ignorance Bay on Facebook.
It’s really interesting to me to hear all of these white, cis, heterosexual republicans lament about how “great” America “used to be.” For anyone who doesn’t fit into one of those categories, the past was a really shitty time. At no prior point in time was it “better” to be a PoC, a woman, or a LGBT person. For us, this is the best time in history. America, while it’s not as good as it could be, has gotten a hell of a lot better than it was.
Here are what is misleading:
- The ballot language says all voters would be required to present valid IDs to be able to vote, but not all voters would be required. For example, absentee voters would not be required to present valid IDs.
- The ballot language says that the state would provide free IDs to all eligible voters when the law would only provide IDs to people who don’t already have government issued IDs.
- The ballot language only talks about Photo ID being required when the bill would actually institute provisional balloting.
Here is what the ballot language omits:
- Fails to disclose that it would institute provisional balloting. The next legislature would have to set it up.
- Fails to disclose that only government-issued IDs are valid.
- Fails to disclose that it would end same-day registration.